coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Kaluga, the Russian Federation.
6.  On 10 July 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kirovsky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (the “District Court”; Кіровський районний суд м. Дніпропетровська) against Ms M., his relative, claiming part of an intestate house she had received after the death of their relatives. Subsequently the applicant amended his claims seeking additional monetary compensation.
7.  Between July 2000 and July 2001 the District Court scheduled twelve hearings, two of them being adjourned on account of the applicant's conduct (amendment of claims and failure to appear). Six hearings were adjourned on account of the defendant's failures to appear, or at her requests. Three hearings were adjourned in connection with various court matters.
8.  On 24 July 2001 the court heard the case in Ms M.'s absence and allowed the applicant's claims. Ms M. appealed.
9.  On 11 December 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”; Апеляційний суд Дніпропетровської області), having heard both parties, upheld this judgment.
10.  On 13 March 2002 Ms M. appealed in cassation.
11.  On 20 February 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 24 July 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the District Court on the ground that Ms M. had not been duly informed of the time of the last hearing in the case.
12.  In June 2003 – November 2004 the Court scheduled seventeen hearings, two of them being adjourned on account of the parties' failure to appear, and two – on account of the applicant's conduct (one absence and one request). Eight hearings were adjourned on account of Ms T.'s absences or at her requests. In August 2003 the District Court fined Ms T. for her repetitive failures to appear. On two occasions hearings were adjourned in connection with various court matters.
13.  On 15 November 2004 the District Court allowed the applicant's claims as to the house and dismissed his claims for compensation.
14.  On 14 December 2004 Ms M. lodged an appeal.
15.  On 21 February 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms M.'s appeal.
16.  On 17 March 2005 Ms M. lodged a cassation appeal.
17.  On 26 June 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed Ms M.'s request for leave to appeal in cassation.
18.  As of 20  February 2007 the enforcement proceedings were pending against Ms M.
19.  In the course of the years, the applicant lodged numerous unsuccessful petitions with various Russian and Ukrainian authorities seeking to expedite the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Novodonetskoye, Donetsk region.
5. On 31 May 2002 the Dobropillya Court awarded the applicant against the State-owned coal-mine “Pioner” UAH 26,051[1] in compensation for work-related damage to his health. On 29 August 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal reduced the award to UAH 24,438[2].
6.  On 7 October 2002 the Dobropillya Office of the Bailiffs' Service instituted the enforcement proceedings.
7.  Between June 2003 and June 2004 the applicant was paid the judgment debt owed to him.
8.  The judgment of 29 August 2002 was enforced in full on 7 June 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Tyumen, the Tyumen Region. He is of Chechen origin.
5.  In 1993 he bought a two-room flat measuring 44.4 square metres in Groznyy, the capital of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. As a result of a military operation in Chechnya the applicant's housing was destroyed.
6.  On 4 July 2003 the Russian Government adopted a Decree laying down the procedure for payment of compensation to citizens who had lost their housing or property situated on the territory of the Chechen Republic.
7.  The Decree established a fixed compensation in the amount of 300,000 Russian roubles (RUR) for any destroyed housing.
8.  On 4 November 2003 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen granted the applicant's claim against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and awarded him RUR 300,000 for the loss of housing. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 20 November 2003.
9.  On 27 November 2003 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen issued a writ of execution.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant and his representative requested the authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the officials of the Ministry of Finance for the failure to enforce the judgment of 4 November 2003.
11.  In 2005, following the request by the Department of Investigation and Administrative Practice of the Federal Bailiffs' service, the applicant and his representative went to Moscow and submitted written explanations as regards their complaints against the officials of the Ministry of Finance.
12.  On 7 December 2005 the judgment of 4 November 2003 was enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region.
5.  On 9 April 1999 the Novogrodivka Court ordered the State-owned mining company “1/3 Novogrodivska” (hereinafter “the Company”) to pay the applicant UAH 1487,17[1] in salary arrears and compensation for damages. The writ of execution was issued on the same day.
6.  On 19 August 1999 and 20 February 2001 the applicant was paid, respectively, UAH 169,86 and UAH 200 (total of UAH 369,86[2]).
7.  On 30 August 2000, 14 May 2001 and 23 December 2002 the Donetsk Commercial Court, in the course of bankruptcy proceedings, prohibited attaching the Company's property and accounts.
8.  In January 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Novogrodivka Department of the State Bailiffs' Service for its alleged inactivity.
9.  On 3 March 2003 the Novogrodivka Court rejected this complaint. The court found that no fault was attributable to the bailiffs as the judgment at issue was not executed due to the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the Company. It also found that the Law of 29 November 2001 “On the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property” was applicable to the case.
10.  On 5 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 31 August 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.
11.  On 13 January 2004 the Company was replaced by the State-owned company “Selidivvugillia” as debtor in the enforcement proceedings and the writ of execution in the applicant's case were transferred from the Novogrodivka to the Selidove Department of the State Bailiffs' Service.
12.  On 25 November 2004 the amount of UAH 1,083.31[3] was transferred to the applicant's bank account.
13.  The judgment of 9 April 1999 remains partly unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 34[4].
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Yuzhne, Odessa region.
5.  In February 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Ministry of Education and Science (hereinafter “the Ministry”) alleging that she had won in the “Best School Textbook” competition organised by the Ministry. However, the prize had not been paid to her. The applicant claimed material and moral damages.
6.  On 20 May 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the Ministry to pay her UAH 2,015.34[1].
7.  On 2 December 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings.
8.  As the Ministry failed to execute the judgment, the Bailiffs sent the writ of execution and payment order to the State Treasury. However, the payment order and the writ were returned to the Bailiffs without execution due to the lack of funds on the Ministry's accounts.
9.  On 11 October 2002 the Bailiffs ordered the attachment of the Ministry's accounts. However, the State Treasury refused to execute this order referring to internal instructions prohibiting such actions.
10.  In their submissions of 13 June 2005 the Government stated that during 2004-2005 the Bailiffs with their letters on several occasions informed the applicant that the amount due was allocated and that in order to receive payment she had to provide information concerning her bank account.
11.  The applicant informed the Court that she had provided the Bailiffs with the information required.
12.  To date, the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of 20 May 2002 was not paid.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic.
5.  On 28 January 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court upheld the applicant's action against the Syktyvkar Town Council and ordered that the Council should:
“...provide Mr Nevolin Valentin Georgiyevich, whose family comprises one member, with well-equipped living premises in Syktyvkar, having a living surface of no less than 9 square metres that meet sanitary and technical requirements”.
6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final. Enforcement proceedings were instituted.
7.  In July 2004 the applicant was offered a room in a hotel. He refused the offer. On 7 September 2004 bailiffs fined the Council because it had failed to enforce the judgment of 28 January 2004. On 25 February 2005 the Council offered the applicant a flat which he agreed to accept. However, in May 2005 the Council withdrew the offer because the flat was occupied.
8.  On 24 May 2005 the Council offered the applicant and his mother a two-room flat which they agreed to accept and moved into. The enforcement proceedings were closed.
9.  On 16 January 2005 the applicant lodged an action against the Syktyvkar Town Council and municipal housing maintenance authorities seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the fact that for years he had been forced to live in a dilapidated house.
10.  On 9 February 2005 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed his claim against the Council but accepted the action against the housing maintenance authority and awarded him 1,000 Russian roubles. That judgment was upheld on appeal on 24 March 2005 by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Donetsk.
5.  On 21 July 2001 the Voroshylivsky District Court of Donetsk (hereinafter “the Voroshylivsky Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 2,698[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by criminal proceedings unlawfully instituted against her.
6.  On 21 August 2001 the Voroshylivsky Court sent the writ of execution to the Kalininsky District Bailiffs' Service of Donetsk. However, the writ was returned without execution as the State Budget did not provide for such payments.
7.  During 2002, the State Treasury on several occasions informed the applicant that the above-mentioned court ruling could not be enforced as the State Budget did not provide for such payments.
8.  On 13 January 2003 the Voroshylivsky Court sent the writ of execution to the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service of Kyiv, which on 15 September 2003 transferred it to the State Treasury.
9.  In their submissions of 10 July 2006 the Government stated that during 2004-2006 the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service with their letters on several occasions informed the applicant that the amount due was allocated and that in order to receive payment she had to provide information concerning her bank account.
10.  The applicant informed the Court that she had received such a letter only once, in September 2004, following which she had immediately provided the information as required.
11.  To date, the amount due to the applicant under the ruling of 21 July 2001 was not paid.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Novosibirsk. She receives an old-age pension.
5.  On 1 February 1998 the Law on Calculation and Adjustment of State Pensions (hereafter “the Pensions Act”) introduced a new method of calculation of retirement benefits based on what is known as the “individual pensioner coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC was the ratio between an individual's wages at the time of retirement and the national average wage. The IPC was meant to maintain a link between pensions and previous earnings.
6.  The applicant considered that the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Pension Fund (hereafter “the Fund”) had incorrectly calculated her pension and in March 1999 she sued the Fund for an increase of her pension in accordance with the Pensions Act.
7.  On 22 November 1999 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found in the applicant's favour. The District Court held that the Fund had misconstrued the law and that the applicant's pensions should be recalculated and increased in line with an IPC of 0.7 starting from 1 February 1998. The District Court also awarded the applicant 3,004.08 Russian roubles (RUR) in pension arrears. On 25 January 2000 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.
8.  On 21 August 2000 the Fund requested the Zayeltsovskiy District Court to reopen the case owing to a newly-discovered circumstance. The Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had issued an Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Act. The Instruction clarified how the Pensions Act should be applied. The Fund further indicated that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had dismissed the complaint by a group of individuals challenging the Instruction. The Supreme Court found that the Ministry of Labour had acted within its competence when it had issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. The Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Supreme Court's decision of 24 April 2000 at the time of the judgment of 22 November 1999, the judgment would have to be reconsidered.
9.  On 31 January 2001 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court granted the Fund's request, quashed the judgment of 22 November 1999 and reopened the proceedings. The District Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances which were not, and could not have been, known to the party concerned. The District Court found that the Instruction could serve as such a circumstance. The decision of 31 January 2001 was final and not amenable to appeal.
10.  On 12 February 2001 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court, after the fresh examination of the case, dismissed the applicant's action in full. On 5 April 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Novovolynsk.
5.  In July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Novovolynsk Court (Нововолинський міський суд Волинської області) against his former employer, the State OJSC “Chervonogradske GMU” (“the Company”; ДВАТ «Червоноградське гірничо-монтажне управління») for various payments.
6.  On 6 October 1999 and 17 December 1999 the court awarded the applicant a total of 3,355.37 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1].
7.  On 21 January 2000 the Chervonograd Bailiffs Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Червоноградського міського управління юстиції Львівської області) initiated the enforcement proceedings for collecting the above amount.
8.  On 20 August 2005 the applicant received UAH 1,409.80[2].
9.  The remaining judgments debt is outstanding on account of the Company's lack of funds and the holding of its assets in tax lien.
4.  The applicants, husband and wife, live in Dniprodzerzhynsk.
5.   In August 2000 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Zavodsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (Заводський районний суд м. Дніпродзержинська) against their employer, the municipally owned Public Transportation Company (“the PTC”; Комунальне експлуатаційне підприємство “Дніпродзержинськміськелектротранс”) for salary arrears and compensation for a delay in the payment of salary.
6.  On 31 August 2000 the court awarded 4,004.55 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] to the first and UAH 3,323[2] to the second applicant in salary arrears and compensation.
7.  Subsequently the applicants lodged similar claims and on 4 April 2001 the court additionally awarded UAH 2,511.83[3] to the first and UAH 1,539.94[4] to the second applicant in salary arrears and compensation.
8.  The judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Zavodsky District Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs”; Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Заводського районного управління юстиції в м. Дніпродзержинську) for enforcement.
9.  On 29 October 2001 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the PTC lacked funds and that no buyers were interested in acquiring its assets.
10.  In January 2002 the Bailiffs proposed that the PTC's property (trams, technical equipment and an administrative building) be transferred to the creditors.
11.  Having received no positive response from the applicants, on 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs returned the enforcement writs to them unenforced.
12.  On 17 June 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Дніпропетровської області) declared the PTC bankrupt and ordered its liquidation.
13.  The PTC paid the salary arrears due to the applicants in several instalments. However, the compensations for a delay in the payment of salary awarded by all four judgments in the amounts of UAH 639.38[5] in favour of the first and UAH 673.94[6] in favour of the second applicant remain outstanding.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kostroma.
6.  On 22 September 2002 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma allowed the applicant's action against the Kostroma Regional Government and awarded him 178,752 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 5,500 euros) as financial aid for housing construction. The District Court found that the applicant was entitled to 29.4 square metres of surface, and that the average market price per square metre in Kostroma was RUR 6,080.
7.  On 20 November 2002 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment became enforceable.
8.  The applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. On 4 March 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 26 March 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because, according to the domestic law, the writs against the regional governments were to be submitted to the Federal Treasury.
10.  The applicant submitted the writ of execution to the local office of the Federal Treasury. On 3 April 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs' service.
11.  On 7 April 2003 the bailiffs' service for a second time opened enforcement proceedings. On 6 June 2003 it discontinued the proceedings.
12.  In November 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. On 18 November 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the award because it did not consider itself liable for the debts of the Kostroma Regional Government. The applicant challenged that decision before a court.  On 10 November 2004 the Kostroma Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims in the final instance as having no basis in the domestic law.
13.  The applicant re-submitted the writ of execution to the bailiff's service. On 27 November 2003 the bailiffs' service for a third time opened enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 27 September 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.
15.  The judgment of 22 September 2002 has remained unenforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Novovolyns'k, Volyn' region.
5.  On 12 November 2002 the Novovolyns'k Court ordered the State-owned mine No. 5 “Novovolyns'ka” to pay the applicant UAH 28,422[1] in compensation for damage to his health. This judgment became final and the writ of execution was issued on the same day.
6.  On 25 December 2002 the Novovolyns'k Office of the Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  On 1 April 2003 the debtor company was reorganised and joined to the State-owned “Volyn'vugillya” company, which became the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.
8.  Between November 2003 and April 2005 the applicant was partially paid the judgment debt owed to him.
9.  On 13 April 2005 the remainder of the debt was transferred to the applicant's bank account and the enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the same date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Gorodok.
5.  On 1 June 1998 the applicant was dismissed by her employer, the Gorodok State Administration (“the Administration”; Городокська районна державна адміністрація) from her position as a senior logistics specialist (головний спеціаліст організаційного відділу секретаріату) on account of her failure to meet the requirements of the post.
6.  On 30 June 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for reinstatement in the Yarmolynets City Court (the “Yarmolynets Court”; Ярмолинецький районний суд Хмельницької області).
7.  On 5 April 1999 the court left the applicant's claim without consideration on account of her failures to appear for the hearings. The applicant did not appeal against this decision within the statutory time-limit.
8.  On 24 October 2000 following the applicant's petition, the Khmelnytsky Region Deputy Prosecutor instituted a protest, seeking to re-open the proceedings on account of the court's failure to inform the applicant of the date of the last hearing.
9.  On 24 November 2000 the Presidium of the Khmelnytsky Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Хмельницький обласний суд)[1] found the protest substantiated, quashed the decision of 5 April 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Yarmolynets Court.
10.  On 6 September 2001 the Yarmolynets Court dismissed the applicant's reinstatement claims. It found, however, that the dismissal record was incorrect, as in fact the applicant had not passed the probationary period. Accordingly, the court awarded the applicant 5,000 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[2] in non-pecuniary damage. Both parties appealed.
11.  On 4 December 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment, but reduced the amount of compensation to UAH 1,000[3]. The applicant appealed in cassation.
12.  On 11 May 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation against the court decisions of 6 September and 4 December 2001.
13.  On 4 February 2002 the Gorodok Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs”; Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Городоцького районного управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 4 December 2001.
14.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant was paid UAH 50[4].
15.  On 3 February 2003 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the debtor's lack of funds.
16.  In January 2003 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the Bailiffs complaining about their failure to collect the judgment debt due to her. These proceedings ended on 22 February 2005 by a ruling of the Regional Court, upholding the decision to leave the applicant's complaint without consideration. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.
17.  On an unspecified date the enforcement proceedings were re-opened and on 14 December 2004 the applicant was paid the remaining award of UAH 950[5].